Gun ban upheld for domestic violence

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal law intended to keep guns away from domestic violence offenders can apply even if their crime was nothing more than “offensive touching.”

The decision was a victory for gun control advocates and groups that work to protect battered spouses and children, and a defeat for gun rights groups that argued the federal law goes too far.

For the justices, it came down to the proper definition of “physical force” — one that a majority decided did not have to be violent or even directly applied to the victim by the abuser. Routine battery convictions, the court said, are sufficient for the ban.

“We see no anomaly in grouping domestic abusers convicted of generic assault or battery offenses together with the others whom ( the federal law) disqualifies from gun ownership,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote.

The law was challenged by James Alvin Castleman, who pleaded guilty to injuring the mother of his child in 2001 and was indicted on gun charges seven years later. He sought to dismiss the gun charges, saying his original crime did not involve physical force.

Many states do not differentiate between actual violence and other actions that cause injury. The federal law relies on state law definitions, but in 28 states and the District of Columbia, assault-and- battery statutes include provisions for mere touching.

During oral arguments in January, the justices wrestled with what would trigger the federal ban. Justice Antonin Scalia assumed a punch in the nose would suffice. Sotomayor asked about “pinching or biting, hair- pulling, shoving, grabbing, hitting, slapping,” actions the Justice Department Office on Violence Against Women incorporates.

All nine agreed that Castleman’s original conviction qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” making him eligible for the federal gun ban.